Diamond’s early signal piece begins by defining empirical research, distinguishing work that relies on observation and experiment from abstract modeling, normative theorizing, and other kinds of nonempirical scholarship. She goes on to develop a creative typology of approaches to the use of empiricism in law. For example, legal researchers can be “clams” who stay relatively immobile in their stances toward the use of empirical research, thereby making some potentially serious errors whether they embrace or reject that research. By contrast, Diamond sketches the more promising roles of “dolphin” legal scholars who, whether performing, using, or critiquing empirical research, do so from an informed and flexible point of view.

In this paper, Jennifer Robbennolt assesses the “persistent tensions and tradeoffs at the intersection of social science methodology and the law from the perspective of legal and policy decision makers who are called upon to utilize empirical research.” Robbennolt’s suggestions for addressing these tensions include: (1) EXPLORE THE TENSIONS, rather than uncritically accepting results (**A distinctly NLR approach!); (2) UNDERSTAND RESEARCH IN CONTEXT; and (3) CONSIDER NEW FORMS OF METHODOLOGICAL TRAINING.